On 4/4/07, Jaime Metcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sorry, "part II" refers to my part II email to this list.
Ah, OK.
Yes, this is what I'm doing. Does anyone think this is weird?
No (I suggested it so I don't think it's weird :)
Yes, I'm totally with Hal on most of this. I know it wasn't his main point, but I can't see why you'd say the Smalltalk-style class object isn't totally suited to loosely specified evolving systems.
I didn't say that. I think Smalltalk is perfectly suited to loosely specified evolving systems. I think dynamic languages in general are very well suited to that type of system - Smalltalk, ColdFusion, Ruby...
You know, while we're crystal ball gazing about the next version, why would this be out rather than in?
What, specifically, are you referring to by "this"? Adding static methods to ColdFusion? (WHY?) Making metadata a full object like Smalltalk's where you can add your own methods and variables? (again, why? Does ColdFusion need that complexity?) -- Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/ "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." -- Margaret Atwood You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, please follow the instructions at http://www.cfczone.org/listserv.cfm CFCDev is supported by: Katapult Media, Inc. We are cool code geeks looking for fun projects to rock! www.katapultmedia.com An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
